Good points, and I agree. That said, I have a gut feeling that when all is said and done, Henrik Lundqvist will have the more impressive career.

It's tough though, since I'm not sure if I'm voting based on who is more talented, who I would want in a big game, or who will have the better career. For those respective categories, I'd go: Lundqvist, Richter, Lunqvist (eventually).

Nice to hear from outsiders, though. Thanks.

Well another thing to point out is that another blinder for the Richter fan boys is that Richter won a Cup (and I mean literally WON THE CUP, he wasn't just on the team) while Lundqvist hasn't. I don't think Lundqvist has fully played to his potential though, so we're also basing this thread/poll on proven skill vs. potential skill. I'll personally disagree with you, I think even when it's said and through, Richter will still be considered the better goalie.

I never said he was. But considering Standup Goalies generally suck unless their absolutely huge, the fact that he didn't give many holes just states even more why he's the better goaltender of the two.

Richter by far had some of the best positioning a goalie can have. He always did a great job cutting down angles and getting big in the net.

Well another thing to point out is that another blinder for the Richter fan boys is that Richter won a Cup (and I mean literally WON THE CUP, he wasn't just on the team) while Lundqvist hasn't. I don't think Lundqvist has fully played to his potential though, so we're also basing this thread/poll on proven skill vs. potential skill. I'll personally disagree with you, I think even when it's said and through, Richter will still be considered the better goalie.

As a Rangers fan, I'm banking on no less than 3 Cups from Henrik before he's done.

Lundqvist hasn't earned the right to be mentioned in the same breath as Richter.

Wins my ass. Ulitmately he (Lundqvist ) doesn't get it done in the big spots and this season is exposing him as a goaltender who benefited greatly from Renney's system. And he's never been more than 5 to 8 games above .500, in his four and a half year career.

Take away that protective system (and quality third and fourth liners like Blair Betts, Jed Ortmeyer, Sjostrom...etc) and you have a goaltender who's getting exposed and crappin' the bed in big spots. And let's face it, he's been crappin' the bed in bog spots in his four previous seasons. "

Rangers All-Time Record Stats are complete and utter nonsense. The Rangers organization, for all their years of existence; have a fairly paltry and pathetic history. The only thing that matters is how a goaltender performs in Big Games and in Big Spots. Lundqvist has been routinely outplayed and out-classed in that area, every Playoff Season.

Great points!

Lundqvist had the benefit of Betts, Ortmeyer and Sjostrom. All Richter had were those stiffs Leetch, Messier, Graves and so forth.

And that's why it's too early to hold this contest. Hence, why I said in my original post, until Lundqvist wins a Stanley Cup, I'm picking Richter. Winning the Olympics in 2006 was an amazing feat, but it's no comparison to a surviving a Stanley Cup marathon and winning it all. Plus, if you want to start comparing international play, Richter was the big reason why the United States won the World Cup in 2006; to me that is compariable to winning the Olympics (even harder perhaps, there were less teams involved and it was best 2 out of 3 in the finals--almost any decent team can get lucky in one game).

Lundqvist will probably be the best goaltender in Rangers history. But not yet.

For the record, Hasek was hands-down the best goaltender I have ever seen.

And the funny thing is, Hasek had no real traditionally defined style of goaltending.

He was all about complete and absolute hockey instinct, vision, anticipation and incredible athletic abilities. He flopped, he dove, he stood up, he flipped, he stretched, he gloved, he kicked, he slid ......he did whatever it took to stop the puck.

Unlike Lundqvist, who if the shot/puck doesn't comply and cooperate with his "style and position" ...pretty much gives up on the hardest of shots and plays.

And the funny thing is, Hasek had no real traditionally defined style of goaltending.

He was all about complete and absolute hockey instinct, vision, anticipation and incredible athletic abilities. He flopped, he dove, he stood up, he flipped, he stretched, he gloved, he kicked, he slid ......he did whatever it took to stop the puck.

Unlike Lundqvist, who if the shot/puck doesn't comply and cooperate with his "style and position" ...pretty much gives up on the hardest of shots and plays.

You claim to be an expert and think that Lundqvist only tries when the shot "complies" with his style? Good god

This is unequivocally one of the dumbest things I've ever read here. You claim to be an expert and think that Lundqvist only tries when the shot "complies" with his style? Good god, you must fall down a lot.

Certainly more accurate than his nickname "The King".

And much more accurate than the gross exaggerations of many of the Lundqvist Fanny Club.

It's not good comparison. One is long done playing. Another is just getting into his prime. You must wait until Lundquist is 35.
Yes, Richter won cup but he also had great players in front of him.........

Until Lundqvist wins a cup, I think this goes to Richter. However, if Henrik ever gets a cup, I think you have to go with him. I was never overly impressed with Richter, but I was young when he was playing and was mainly just a Blues fan as opposed to a hockey fan.

1. Why do you even try to compare two goalies from two different eras, who never played together and certainly didn't play in front of similar teams together? How can you try to compare incomparable things? They played goalies? Yes! And there ends the similarities.

2. Does the answer even make sense?

3. Some of the arguments in these threads for either goalie, are ridiculous. And you should know it. "Won the Cup with his team?" Jesus... When will that stop being assumed as a logical, valid argument? Hint: Try dividing the imaginary points you give your goalie for winning the cup, with the number of players who helped carry the team. This will give a less crappy - but still crappy - answer. No goalie has ever won the Cup with a at least mediocre team in front of him.

The question of this thread, is a wolf in disguise. The real question is: Which goalie do you like the most? Because there can really be no valid arguments for who was better, so you have to make the arguments up, assuming the position as agitator for the goalie you liked most. You certainly won't make up pro-arguments for the goalie you liked the least, did you? Or even count them in the back of your head, for there is none to count!

Or wait? Am I being too harsh here? Since this is a very common phenomena, for some sports-nerdic reason? Like for the trekkies, which Star Trek boy-magnet was the prettiest? Or wait, this is the point of forums, is it? Damn, I just got depressed.

edit: Stupid Eeyore, get on your own row!
edit2: I vote on Lundqvist, because I think he speaks better Swedish than Richter and is well dressed.

Come on, why is this a thought, Richter won a cup, won many series by himself (1997 series against Devils), Hank has won 2 playoff series, can the guy get into a conference final first. Can we stop talking about Hanks win totals too. These days there is always a winner, Richter has ties, you could not win by the cheap shootout rules. Plus his first few years he split time with the Beezer so he did not play 70 + games a year.